While specialized “problem-solving” courts have become common, there is still no equivalent civil mental health court in Massachusetts to handle complex issues like civil commitment and involuntary psychiatric treatment. The gap exposes the potential for the Commonwealth to learn from other states leading reform of the civil judicial system in this area and to pilot such a court and evaluate its impact through a randomized controlled trial.
Rogers hearings, the Massachusetts ruling designed to protect patient autonomy in involuntary psychiatric treatment, often cause harmful delays in treatment. Two reforms that propose shifting responsibility to Administrative Law Judges and to mental health professionals respectively, however, could help bring timely treatment and better advocacy.
In Massachusetts, involuntarily committed psychiatric patients with schizophrenia often face systemic barriers to timely treatment from procedural inefficiencies that prioritize legal formalities over patient well-being. To address this access to justice challenge, the Commonwealth could implement reforms to streamline the legal process while preserving patient rights.
Government websites, when effective, can make the process of filing for bankruptcy, divorce, restraining orders and other common legal requests easier. Unfortunately, the quality of these websites varies significantly with many state and federal sites’ lack of accessibility reflecting limited access to justice for their users. Fixing these websites is a relatively easy and inexpensive method to expand accessibility to court systems and services, provided the willpower is there.
In the second part of the “Student Voices” series on “no money down” bankruptcies, HLS student Joe Liberman picks up where he left off in the previous blog: exploring possible solutions to the problems of Chapter 13 filings, understanding their tradeoffs, and proposing how we might study them.
The combination of rising debt and inability to pay for legal help has allowed the proliferation of a financially fraught practice: “no money down” bankruptcies. While purporting to help the low income client, these bankruptcies often leave the filer in a worse financial situation because they were ill-suited for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. This post explores the rise of “no money down” bankruptcies and how we can address this access to justice issue.
Do pro se litigants struggle to interpret rules of civil procedure? Or could noncompliance be explained by other access to justice (A2J) barriers? Advocates for pro se litigants often focus on translating the law into plain language. But these efforts fall short of addressing deployability, an individual’s ability to leverage their knowledge of the law in court. Recent research suggests many A2J barriers fall into the latter category.
The landmark court decision in Gideon v. Wainwright from 1963 made it a constitutional right, both in federal and state courts, for criminal defendants to have the right to counsel. That decision does not extend to civil cases– such as child custody, eviction, and domestic violences cases–which affect women, often from marginalized backgrounds, more than than men. HLS student Laura Aquino argues for a study to address the gender bias in denying legal assistance to civil litigants that may play a role in preserving a system that limits access to justice for women.
Law is a millennium behind medicine (give or take a few centuries). While medicine has evolved into a science-based discipline with rigorous empirical standards, law still operates on precedent, rhetoric, and theory untethered to scientific evidence. It doesn’t have to be that way. There is nothing so unique about the practice of law that makes it immune to data. Why should law, unlike every other discipline, not submit itself to math and science?
Across the country, courthouse cell phone bans pose a significant barrier to entry to the legal system. HLS J.D. candidate Andrew Reed argues that in attempting to maintain a respectful atmosphere and protect privacy with cellphone bans, courthouses have inadvertently made access to justice less attainable for many, including pro se litigants.
